Skip to main content
12:00 pm
so to say that sammy ended up with the best of the worst, not only did they have the prime, but they got the best of the worst. so i will leave it at that. >> next question over here. the microphone is fair. thank you. >> john henry, dry stone capital. do any of you or does anyone have a detailed plan on how to put fannie mae and freddie mac into runoffs? how do you take a $5 trillion enterprise can put it in discontinued operations over a trying. that could be acceptable in disruption. >> we will let bob start on that. afterwards if you want to start with me we can talk about that and formally and i will share a few ideas. >> i searched they don't have a
12:01 pm
plan. i think alex and ed have suggestions and very interesting ones. >> may i have a moment just to read the conclusion of mr. johnson's book? my ultimate vision is that the housing finance of the real estate system that is sufficiently flexible to fit the capability of every individual family. we should define a system that shows people what they are able to afford and builds momentum towards ownership by giving them savings vehicles come counseling and information. if people of equity and want to use it, the system should make judgments about how much to let them use. the system should allow flexibility and economic capacity and should invite all film is to think of homeownership and prepare for it. but shoko is that when i read this. what was driving a was more and more debt, more and more
12:02 pm
leverage. that was the only thing cne and freddie were interested in. their business as mortgages, said they wanted more of them. the bigger house, a lower down payment, higher mortgage. whatever it was infallibly to increase their profit potential because that's the system to make a private public system was devised. >> great comic thank you. we are delighted to have had the chance to discuss this outstanding book. thank you for all your questions. there will be more chance for questions and formally. there is a reception outside. hope he'll have the book and have bob autograph it. thank you very much and thanks to you and to our commentators. [applause] >> coming up, booktv presents
12:03 pm
"after words," the program were made by guest hosts to interview authors. this week, james patterson and his latest book, either distraction, jaime to 65 transformed america. in the book, the bankrupt prizewinner explores the abyss of the passage of the voting rights act come the summer race riots in troop deployment to vietnam. he discusses the divisive year with howard university modern history professor, daryl scott. >> host: hello, jim. it is my pleasure to be here to discuss her new book, the eve of destruction, how 1965 transformed america. as you know, we historians love to ask one another how it became the issue decided to write about a given topic. what brought you to read about 1965? >> well, i cut 20th century 19th century history for a number of years, mostly at brown
12:04 pm
university. as we move through this thing, i started doing this in the 60s, so i didn't teach the 60s because it was in history. later on an important part of my courses and i've written some books which talked about aspects of the 60s. like a lot of other historians, i became a little bit uncomfortable with the notion that the 60s can be described as something 1960 to 1970. historians like to do this. they like to talk about the 30s or or the 20s or the 90s and so forth. sometimes it works. in the 30s you can do that because of depression throughout the decade. mostly it doesn't work because if you look back with in the early 60s, 61, 62, 63, 64 until kennedy's assassination in november 1963, so much a daily life in popular culture and
12:05 pm
music and politics and the way people dress and so forth seemed very much like the 60s. when we think of the 60s we think of a lot of turmoil, polarization, urban riots rock concerts, woodstock, so forth and so on. and i became convinced that he should not talk about the 60s as 19621970, the something with the 60s start around 1965, which is what i've done. >> host: did you realize that at the time? another was coming days you feel your world change around you? >> guest: a little bit. i mention the practice of this book that i started teaching at indiana university in september september 1964. my first real job after getting my doctorate is very busy
12:06 pm
preparing forces and my wife and i had a son december 1964. so i was not paying a lot of attention to what was going on in the world. but it became impossible not to be aware of the tension in tensions and divisions developing. they were not particularly severe in 1865, it certainly became that way in a couple of years. they did on other campuses, such as michigan in march of 1965, a big 10 rival of indiana, you begin to see a life-changing. is being addressed differently, some of them out east, much more concerned in vietnam. >> he sought the change take place before your eyes. let me ask you this question. even though you saw the change taking place, when did you start
12:07 pm
looking at the 60s this history? >> probably not until sometime in the 90s -- 80s or 90s. i'm pretty sure it wasn't until the 80s that significant portion of my course syllabus, which was 20th century history included significant reasons on the 1960s. so maybe that's one answer of the question. but of course a lot of people have been talking about the 60s even during the 60s as the 60s. a lot focused on one year, sometimes we historians love to talk about change across time is pretty much what we'd like to do and we would like to talk about large swaths of time quite often. and sometimes we have this decade in, too.
12:08 pm
but we rarely do here. there is the way in which is kind of a close-up on the world, on american society in 1865. is there a way that you can give us a sense of how this unfolds? in other words, how do we get to 1965 so we can better understand the terms of the conversation of how much change to please. >> first read this interesting how books there are on individual years at the 60s. i mention some of these in my practice because i know a lot of people will say someone else says 1968. 1968 was a huge year. you had johnson resigning, decided not to go for another term. yet nixon's election, assassination of mr. king and bobby kennedy. you had democratic party's wild convention in chicago. so a lot of books on 68,
12:09 pm
woodstock and also months and that sort of thing. so i'm afraid my book is by no means unique. there's also a book on 1964, which makes pretty much the same argument as i do, only he sets a year earlier. i don't have been a huge quarrel with that. i wouldn't say i'm the only person who's right about this, the 65 did seem to be the time, not that it was the most romantic. 68 probably was in terms of world shattering, memorable events. but it was a time when the 50s and early 60s rapidly vanished or began to vanish from view and a hurry. the real reason, that's why. >> i think i've pretty much agree with you that the central year is 1965.
12:10 pm
but there's something more at stake in your book, at least i think so. i want to prove i'm not. in a way we can either be talking about the 60s and just talking about were 65 hits in the 1960s, but there's a claim in the book on 1965 transformed america. so in that statement that seems to be you are saying that america is not the same after 1965 and that is what makes 1965. so there's something at stake that 65 is meaningful for the 70s and 80s and 90s and there's a way in which one could argue the other years there's not. you see 65 is being the watershed year, if i've got you, for broader development in american society. is that correct? >> guest: yes, pretty much.
12:11 pm
i don't want to take it too far because nobody would argue something that starts in january 1st and then it's all done december 31st. there are a number of things about the later 60s, for instance, where you cannot see a whole lot of things happening in 1965. for instance, the women's movement. if you have the beginnings in 1965 and published in 1963, you don't have women organizing until a little bit later. same thing is true of television shows. for the most part, movies. it's not until 1967 that you've got the graduate or bonnie and clyde and not until the early 70s when you have the all in the family show. that you've got the graduate or bonnie and clyde and not until the early 70s when you have the all in the family show. that you've got the graduate or bonnie and clyde and not until the early 70s when you have the all in the family show.
12:12 pm
is much more in-line with the the 50s. charlotte bonanza and culligan island. that doesn't change. you do see significant changes in popular music and you probably want to ask me about that. the two big changes are in civil rights and the civil rights and nba tom. so those were lasting effects. >> host: what you seem to be suggesting that the engines of change if you will buy the civil rights movement and changes taking place within the movement in the word itself so that you understand the cultural transformation, a much broader cultural transformation. you understand about power movement more so than just a movement, but the cultural transformation that takes place in the black community. you understand within the white community and you understand ultimately the culture wars if you will coming out of the
12:13 pm
ferment of the 60s, which really began in 1965. so that seems to be what is at stake of a novel. but it also seems to be what is at stake at another level is all of the political strength that we've had young just the culture wars that reaganism must be understood by 1965 in the great society. so the big players in the game of the civil rights movement and the lbj administration because they think of that as a third fact there. the great society itself. so it's all related, if you will, to lbj. so in a sense, he perhaps would argue this, and hillary rodham clinton talked about the importance of lbj and got in trouble in 2008. but clearly he was a central player in the unfolding in transformation of american
12:14 pm
society. so let's talk about that. >> if there were a movie on that book, which of course they won't be, he would be the star. he of course takes over the assassination of november 63. in 64 he is getting organized, preparing to run for election on his own and of course he does win. he absolutely tramples barry goldwater, was a huge margin of the jury and along with him is a huge, large democratic majority in both houses of congress. some people later on like and what obama did in 2008. obama's mandate was by no means clear and emphatic as johnson's was. he also had a whole year, plus 13 or 14 months to be thinking
12:15 pm
about what he would do when he was really president in his own right after the election of 64 and when he is an underrated in 1965. he jumps right in with this great society program. the adobo series of special committees and so forth have been studying issues, education, poverty, welfare, urban problems and so forth taskforces and had all these reports ahead of him when the congress of 1965 started. he staged the hugest inauguration ever. the only thing that popped it was obama's in 2009. he hit the ground running in a big way with a series of speeches and proposals and messages to congress for medicare, medicaid, elementary and secondary education act if it became called.
12:16 pm
title i competitor education, creation of housing and urban development cabinet. by the way, appointed the first black member, robert weaver in 1956. so the great society and the passage of that and how johnson does it is front and center, particularly early in the book. and then a lot of things have been they don't prevent them from getting these things done, but do you change the politics. by the end of the year, ronald reagan is clearly going to run for governor as you point out in 1866 and dancing beats pat brown who for years earlier had the nixon in the race for the governor. >> what i found most amazing about the great society is in effect that comes out of nowhere. there is no predicate for it. progressivism comes out that the turmoil of 1890.
12:17 pm
of course you know the new deal comes out of the turmoil of the great depression. you could argue that obamacare comes out of the great recession. where in the world did the society come from? and i think you answered that question. seven years old, 65 i remember in 64, we went around the neighborhood in an all-black community, saying we won the war of 1964. this of course is about the election of lbj. so that was my awakening. there is a sense that something important had happened. one could not have predicted the revolution in social policy that became the great society. your answer for all that seems to be it is the sheer wealth of
12:18 pm
america. could you talk about that from? >> yes, the economy has been growing nonstop since 1961 and it was absolutely powerful, moving ahead that a steam engine in 64 and 65 and begins to have trouble in 65 and another minor breaking point here. in the early 60s i went through a book called print executions which covers in part this. this was a time of the grandiose expectations and johnson was nothing if not grandiose. he's larger than the state of texas. he's this great big guy. not much of a speaker, but really on top of everything. people are contrasted into obama and usually obama doesn't come out in these and the way johnson
12:19 pm
managed congress. he's constantly on the phone, counseling at the white house, really on top of things. clearly he wanted to get these things done. people used to think johnson was this characteristically boisterous texan image conservative in civil rights. but i will pour into his background. by 1965, clearly with a strong liberal and believed that government could do good things and he would get them done. >> so much of what has happened in american society during the late 20th century is whether it is a socialist or just a liberal protest. every demand would be practice at some point with the
12:20 pm
wealthiest country in the world. how could this be in the wealthiest country in the world? i think it is a throwaway line when people say it then. but yet, even though it was cliché, it was still one of the most truthful statement said. , that everybody believed that america should be better because we are just filthy rich. and so it sets the background for all of this. now, what went wrong? broadway route with all of this? your title is -- the main title is the eve of destruction. so i first got the book, we'll put titles. i must say i know a lot of the 60 songs, but that is one song i didn't remember.
12:21 pm
but tell us about the title. what is eve of destruction mean to? >> guest: the title is not a deal in some ways because it leaves the impression that somehow pilots say early 66, the eve of destruction and 65 when this happened. you have to forget the things we were talking about, which is to say this incredible outpouring of liberal legislation that johnson cut through. medicaid, medicaid of a very racist immigration in the voting rights act, which not too many people thought would be
12:22 pm
legislated in 1965, including johnson because he thought he was starting other huge alabaster such as how the passage for a very long time for the 64 civil rights act. more money for the war on poverty and all these things can accretion of the national endowment for the arts and humanities could go on. it was the first time the federal government putting money into america's public schools for general education. none of these things -- many things have been on the docket for years that the education act, make medicare and harry truman, which is much broader to cut
12:23 pm
12:24 pm
12:25 pm
12:26 pm
he said, these at once hopeful times in all the years since christ was born in bethlehem.
12:27 pm
he added, this is december 64. today as never before been an assist discussion capacity to add work to preserve peace, to eradicate poverty and shared bindings, to overcome diseases afflicted to human race and permit all mankind to enjoy their promise and life on this earth. this -- he believed that was the case and other people, james reston of "the new york times" echoed this in a column at the start of 1965. "time" magazine had a special issue titled on the verge of a golden era. all of these very late 64, early 65. in january 1965, we were not supposedly engaged in combat in vietnam. in 1965 coming you've already
12:28 pm
had passed in 1964 civil rights act, which was the most single act in 20th century american history. >> host: i think it is the 65 act. then you have the warm poverty in 1864 and it just seemed as if you are a liberal and you are aware of all the problems the next century, here we are finally going to deal. imagine that prosperity is. this is terribly important because they make people confident not only they could go about their daily lives and they would be better off every year than they were, but that the country, the government would be to raise the revenue to pay for these programs. it is a very unusual reformed. in this history because so many in the 30s, for instance in to some extent progressive, the bad times when you got to do something.
12:29 pm
>> this time he didn't necessarily have to do something. any of the things had been on the agenda with liberals for a long time. and so, they are destroyed. eva destruction really doesn't fit that part of it very much because johnson gets most of the through. what is the civil rights movement and what happens in american foreign policy. to the extent that the destruction that lbj did and did not do, i mean, i admire how you unfold the story but the economy of force. people have killed a lot of treasonable that. but it is still important for us to understand and you make it clear to a degree that i'd never really thought about it, that it
12:30 pm
was really in 1965 if johnson had handled the word differently in 1865 that maybe things would have been much different to the 60s as we know may not have happened. so talk about that some because it's fascinating. >> guest: you know, it's always to look back on what a president does what it says something as awful as vietnam. he went to the back and try to find out, was there a point where we could have gotten out of this or avoid it if? and i think 1965 was the time when he bit the bullet several times on this issue and done himself by the summer of 1965 so heavily involved in combat in vietnam that there is simply no getting out of it. in fact, johnson himself knew this. he knew this is one of the tragic things about his spirit he knew when he estimated the
12:31 pm
war, that the united states and south vietnam were not going to win it. they were not going to defeat north vietnam. they were not even going to invade north vietnam. what they were going to do is preserve south vietnam. that is the most they could hope for and they weren't even sure about that. so it was in 60 bitty bites the bullet. january 1st 1965 united states has around 23,000 troops. they are called military advisers. this is about 7000 more in the 6000 more than the 16 or 17,000 that were there in november 1963 when kennedy was assassinated. this piece of the year he's increased in 16 or 17,000 to 23,000. this is a considerable
12:32 pm
percentage increase, but not a lot of people appeared they were supposedly not in combat. the only comment that occurred mr. in the gulf of tonkin crisis in august of 1964 when johnson retaliated by bombing north vietnamese installations. but that lasted only two days. during the campaign he acted as they were the moderate vietnam, which is easy to do since goldwater was very much of an issue. so you cannot read it in january january 65. the situation is the same, but on february 7 is arrayed by vietcong in the northern part of the country and south vietnam. some americans are killed in their beds early in the morning
12:33 pm
and he uses this as a pretext to retaliate with amin of north vietnam. that bombing becomes something no as rolling thunder within a month and were off and running. agent orange in the whole day. amin starts in early 1965. in march of 1965 because general westmoreland in vietnam is saying the americans around the airbases from which these raids take place on with it on the protection. they are being attacked by vietcong. you have to send troops over. so johnson sends a marine in early march on the same day, so that's the beginning of it. and then there is another huge escalation in july of 1965. so you go from 23,000 from a
12:34 pm
supposedly noncombat troops, although some had been in combat small numbers are being killed. by a large they are not. at the end of the year is 184,000. >> host: is johnson responsible for everything, but westmoreland, you also get the sense that westmoreland made that decision based based upon his understand of warfare that he couldn't quite conceive bedsheet, would they realize what lbj and westmoreland relays the south vietnamese could not stand up on their own, they could've made a different decision. that's what i always think that. and they realize this government was going to fall. it was not going to ever stand up on its own two feet. that seems to be the flaw -- the real flawed decision-making
12:35 pm
process. you are there, you're invested, but you're propping up someone. there is a way in which was much later, but you're making clear they understood this in 1965 were propping up a weak regime. they knew they were going to win. so it strikes me because there's something we don't talk about much anymore, which of course is a result the region in 1860s and 70s in which people would talk about guns versus butter. we don't talk about the world. we could very well talk about our current crisis this way. guns versus butter seems to be more of a consensus now by how we wage war to domestic and international affairs for foreign affairs. so they now believe you always have at the extensive butter. it was almost understanding that
12:36 pm
most people would've wanted to better if he will. it was always a strong national defense, but we have to point out it wasn't the conservatives. so there is the way in which everyone is happy in america delicious milk and butter and then johnson invests it goes off to war. >> i spend a lot of time trying to explain why he did this because as you describe it, it sounds crazy. johnson, like kennedy, like eisenhower, like sherman, from truman about three presidents were on record as was the majority of congress is saying the united states, headed the free world and was still a very strong cold war climate. of course the bay of pigs would have been just a couple years
12:37 pm
before that in 1862, that the united states had the responsibility to protect the independence of nations from communistic russia. this may south vietnam. now, kennedy had raised troop levels. i won't go into all the things that truman and eisenhower did, but right alone, we are very heavily involved in protect and south vietnam and johnston believed that these prior commitments committed him. he also is a strong cold war era. he is to comment on how the young people protesting simply didn't understand communism because they'd never grown up or had to fight world war ii. they didn't know what appeasement meant in munich, you know, chamberlain forth. the united states must keep its commitments. it was johnson's great
12:38 pm
misfortune when you either had to fish. kennedy didn't have to do it. >> host: you are referring of course to the nominal theory. >> guest: is a very good cold warrior, but i never bought the domino theory. because this has always made every disappeared histories that this is america thinking that you put up a solid wall. not just united front, the sheer method is just no opposition on these issues and let them not have one and where they will take it all and appeasement is what it would be called as opposed to strategy to be a perpetual cold war of divide and conquer. in other words, i've always understood as divide and conquer, baby. that's how we do with the
12:39 pm
opposition. so you are saying in effect that eisenhower, even eisenhower had he been in office might have felt compelled at a certain moment to invest more, but clearly with the theory in play that there's a likelihood that everyone would at least feel to have to go deeper into vietnam. >> guest: johnson very much fear that if he allowed south vietnam to fall to the north and was followed up and became part of a communist country, that he was suffer suffered the same fate that truman suffered under people of mike mccarthy and various others who said the united state lost china to use. this is very rash in 1937. as majority leader in the early
12:40 pm
50s and the majority leader of the senate during the heyday of mccarthyism. any solipsistic to the democratic party, saw what it did to truman. he didn't want it to happen to him. it is a combination of good politics, but also he had no choice but to do it. that's what was tragic about this. he had no exit strategy. >> host: there are a couple things in this book that kind of struck me. i didn't realize that richard russell was really reluctant. so there was support among people who had impeccable foreign policy and credentials. so he would have had some. so he would've had some support, significant support. so there was still johnson's decision to make. he could've done something
12:41 pm
different. on the other side of this, i am still struck by how johnson was well aware as a master politician that there is a relationship between guns and butter, that even though this is a wealthy nation, we cannot run deficits of a certain sort. we have to move the fighting and that would have consequences for his domestic program. he then johnson in the most liberal administration is very clear on this, that you just could not spend limitlessly and he knew that this war was going to impinge on his domestic agenda and virtually everybody. this is well understood. >> guest: it did. didn't really affect spending in 1965. i do want to maintain a 65 is the worst year of the war.
12:42 pm
not all that many americans actually died -- died in 1965. so if they say from 23,284,000 after 400,000, which was a terrible year, to 550,000 at the time johnson leaves office in 1969. so even that is not enough to win the war. >> that's fairly clear. what also strikes me as interesting is that we think of the war opposition as starting in a way in which there was no war, if there's no student there's no opposition to the war. but what is also striking in your book is how there was a kind of opposition to the war among the chattering classes,. this war have not position from
12:43 pm
the establishment from the very beginning. >> guest: i don't make much of that. it is true there is a lot of professors, for instance in having been on the college campus i can attest to that. but actually what striking about 65 is basically all polls, depending how you ask the question to show support for johnson's escalation. it is not until six to six and later on that it really becomes difficult. someone could write an 66 in terms of vietnam and what was going on to the federal budget. this is much more consequential than 1965. once you're in there, it just gets deeper. that is what i mean for detert destruction. you can't get out of it. after that nothing is the same.
12:44 pm
>> host: lbj is not in control of everything. every president learns their limits to power. people don't do what she wanted to do. so so much is going on in the society, even before the war. you have two channels -- this is taking place. the great society 15th in the middle of this vietnam war. on the other side of course he spent much time talking about. on the other side is the response of the students to war. 65 days this year. there is a way in which you look at what happens. early in the year malcolm x was assassinated. then of course we have been mentioned yet is you have the watts riot on how you interpret the event. the tears the development taking
12:45 pm
place. you get the most equal weight to the unfolding in the way you almost set this up is that you almost as an history take the civil rights if our southern night i would say that either destruction with either faith before, 57 or 64 if you will. it certainly was when it comes to civil rights 65. so that maybe their perspective, but let's just talk about that for a second. it's kind of a criticism, you almost assume we are all in toward the civil rights in 64, or at least it can be managed.
12:46 pm
>> guest: yes, i see 64, as i mentioned before as the year of enormous strides in the civil rights movement. i wrote a book on the brown deep lord case in 1964. as you know and everybody knows, this was supposed to bring an end to racial segregation in public schools. in 1864, virtually no black kids were going to score twice in the deep south. so in 10 years, the supreme court -- unanimous supreme court decision had virtually no effect. what has that affected some of the civil rights act as some of the earlier 60s and here in the late 50s imagine 57. in 60 because the citizens and 60 when the freedom rights. 62, ole miss, 63 birmingham and so forth. so this act is among the street
12:47 pm
was that necessary this brown versus board it necessary, but not sufficient. so the way these things together for the bottom-up and top-down connecticut this immensely powerful civil rights act passed in 1964. this is a wonderful thing. everyone is cheering how wonderful this is. we know there is more to be done. but i would say yes, this is my take on it. you do have a lot of problems in 64. things are getting really nasty. people are getting killed. philadelphia mississippi are murdered and the thought of churches are bombed and so forth and so on. so nobody could read this book and conclude. but there is definitely a sense that we are really making progress. we're really making gains. on the very first day of the
12:48 pm
year, martin luther king opens up his drive and saw mom that takes up a good chapter. he bummed out this story and you have this bloody sunday when the chairperson of police beat up people including john lewis and it's on television and johnston says we will overcome it comes up for act with later in the session passes. he earlier said that's even more important than the 64 acts. however, during the course, which should be regarded, were already there. in fact, the student found violating coordinating committee , which resented martin luther king coming in and taking
12:49 pm
credit and would work with him for the most part. there is virtually no meeting of the minds between snake and coral on the one hand and the southern christian leadership in the cooking of the other. they begin to see a split within the civil rights movement is pretty reparable. post goes to let me devils advocate. there was a lot of people who talk about the black freedom for a movement and a seat at the event, whether in terms of civil rights for civil rights and black power, social and political influence in society. they see it as something that has the goal. others might say okay, you're right. 1965 by that by that time you have for civil rights and voting rights combined. let's move on. not everyone will be happy. in other words, i don't
12:50 pm
necessarily think a split in the civil rights movement is inherently important. selma still leads to the the voting rights act is not inherently important in terms of decisions in sclc. the black road changes in a way that there's a riot in harlem and they seem to mean some pain. and so, it's not even the sheer violence of it. i think a lot of it has to do -- anything people were shocked by the riot in california, the riot nla. tell us about that. how does it really change the black movement or just the way people perceive civil rights. i guess another way of putting it is what does it do to the
12:51 pm
black community? what does it do to equate liberalism? >> guest: to white liberalism, but it does is other white liberals were shoulder to shoulder with blacks in the south. some of them got killed. after a while, a lot of them sat back and said these guys are not christlike, nonviolent civil rights people. they are hoodlums. they are burn baby burn. they are bad people fighting police. in the burn down buildings. so, this sort of makes a lot of white people cautious and they're not really sure what is happening here and they don't like what they see. i am not saying that they give up on freedom struggle. johnson doesn't give up on the freedom struggle. he continues to get legislation and initially stack. like how could this happen. he done within a president by
12:52 pm
fire for civil rights and it happened under his watch. he was just really shaken by this, but he got over that. a lot were uncertain. johnson realized he'd made this enormously powerful speech at the university where he teach at the commencement in june but they basically cause affirmative-action in terms of social policy. but they have special needs and special policies. we can be colorblind about this. it says is going to call it great that white house conference in the fall. >> host: everything gets reinterpreted. johnson is not a good motive and the black people are not the right spirit and even the leadership of the black community. and of course malcolm x dies in
12:53 pm
february, but kirsten malcolm x. he makes everyone rethink everything. it makes some people think there's a black revolution that is going to overthrow the united states government. so what scares people taking. there was a way in which people say 65 and there's a lot going on. that's important. there's a vietnam war. the g, the destruction briley start in two places. the students for a democratic society transformed by the war. until the escalation it's not even so he had a 65.
12:54 pm
>> host: .must be provocative. this would be more provocative than the see my. it's a been a professional military, no draft in 1963, with the 60s as you know it taken place. that's the reason i argue that ended the draft. and that we have a professional army. you do not want the citizenry to decide before you should fight in 1963 card rehabbing arm, would have been different. >> let's assume this is how the
12:55 pm
draft. obviously what you're saying was very probably a lot would've been different because many of its leaders had a radical notion of the country. they were just opposed to the vietnam war. in 64 they were divided about what they really wanted to do. many thought we should worry about poverty first. 65 is pretty much an antiwar organization. unfunded antiwar people were being radical center said this is a top board and we don't want to be trusted. but the radicals really had a notion that the fact that the united states is in this war and so many other wars was a sign of creative capitalism and the inhabitable sort of inequalities that exist in the country and we
12:56 pm
really have to fundamentally reshape the nature of the country. but not too many people bought into that. most of the antiwar protests were by people opposed to the war and didn't want to get drafted. so your counterfactual question makes you think. >> host: now so far counterfactual that would have been hard to imagine what they would've gotten half a million soldiers and a booming economy. but again, we did have an urban crisis, so perhaps they were more people around who might've been susceptible to entice me. they were susceptible in the 1970s when the economy wasn't going so well. some maybe they could've built up an army. i don't know if they could have built up an army is quickly. but clearly the war grew in opposition and the opposition was based first in the draft.
12:57 pm
i mean, in other words do accept that kind of proposition that without that draft, sts may have had a leadership concerned about some issues, but the mass following day seemed to have for several years, was it just hate to people's self-interest? >> guest: is certainly overwhelmingly antiwar. as they say, some of the people in sds and some of the antiwar people, john lewis, for instance and others for james farmer, martin luther king or in various ways pacifist. they were opposed to all wars. they were opposed to violence. so they were consistent. this is a bad word. now there's a cultural trends station that takes place and that's the hardest transition i
12:58 pm
have defined, but i know by 66 and 67, certain things will happen with music. we know it's going to happen with the war, but the change does seem to be take place by the end of 65. in other words, is it the war? is that the escalation of the war that leads to the choir sung, eve of destruction? you think it's a portrait in. in other words, is it the escalation? >> guest: well, you are right. it was sasson and it talked about selma. it talked about racism, nuclear weapons and it talked about vietnam. it's a loud soundtrack with guns booming off. it hit the top of the parade in september 65 and stayed to be a popular soccer at the end of the year. and it was one of the very first
12:59 pm
songs, popular songs come which was both antiwar and popular. if you listen to it, it's hard to see why. it has kind of a nice, easy beat. his words are strong and loud and vicious sort of about the whole crazy world coming about in the sense of apocalypse here. this appeal to a lot of young people. >> host: it seems that the cultural transformation is as rapid as the escalation of war. it's true, music changes somewhere between 64 and 66. within that time period, music changes. like music, rock 'n roll changes. and it seems to be related, once again to the change in the civil rights movement, from the civi

Book TV After Words
CSPAN November 25, 2012 12:00pm-1:00pm EST

James Patterson Education. (2012) 'The Eve of Destruction How 1965 Transformed America.'

TOPIC FREQUENCY America 9, United States 7, South Vietnam 5, North Vietnam 3, Lbj 3, Us 3, Martin Luther King 3, Clyde 3, Bonnie 3, Eisenhower 3, Truman 3, Selma 2, Indiana 2, Johnston 2, Obama 2, John Lewis 2, Brown 2, California 1, ClichÉ 1, Harlem 1
Network CSPAN
Duration 01:00:00
Scanned in San Francisco, CA, USA
Source Comcast Cable
Tuner Channel 91 (627 MHz)
Video Codec mpeg2video
Audio Cocec ac3
Pixel width 704
Pixel height 480
Sponsor Internet Archive
Audio/Visual sound, color

disc Borrow a DVD of this show
info Stream Only
Uploaded by
TV Archive
on 11/25/2012